The pendency of a criminal case for contravention of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is not a ground for the suspension of a kerosene dealer's license under Clause 8 of the Bihar Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1965.

K.B.N.SINGH, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the show cause notice dated the 25th January, 1975 (Annexure 3) against cancellation of the wholesale kerosene dealers licence, the order of suspension of supply of kerosene quota dated the 25th January, 1975, (Annexure 4), of the District Supply Officer, Madhubani, as also the order of the District Magistrate, Madhubani, dated the 13th July, 1975, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 7, along with the supplementary affidavit, suspending the licence of the petitioner till the decision of the Phulparas Police Station Case No.16(6) 1973, on the following averments made in the writ application.

2. The petitioner is a registered firm and holds a wholesale kerosene dealers licence, No.32 of 1963, under the Bihar Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing Order). The petitioners case is that the District Supply Officer, Madhubani, on the 25th January, 1975, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why its wholesale Kerosene dealers licence be not cancelled on account of the lodgment of a case, being Phulparas Police Station Case No.16(6) 1973 (Annexure 3). On the same date, Respondent No.3 also issued an order (Annexure 4) in pursuance of an order of the District Magistrate of Madhubani, dated the 10th January, 1975, suspending the supply of the quota of Kerosene oil to the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that Phulparas Police Station Case No.16(6) 1973 was registered at Phulparas Police Station under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on an alleged report of one Amol Jha, alleging that on the 26th June, 1973, at 12 noon, some worker of the Sangharsh Sarniti informed him that 5 tins of kerosene oil of (sic) black-market was being kept at the place of Chandrakant Thakur Sonar by some person of Tamoria. It was alleged that the informant gave this information in writing to the Officer-in-charge of Phulparas Police Station, as well as the Inspector of Jainagar, who were then sitting at Ghoghardiha Station. Both these officers went to the place of occurrence and there they found one Fulchand Kamat, the alleged purchaser of the aforesaid five tins of Kerosene oil, who, on interrogation, allegedly, informed them that he had purchased the aforesaid five tins of Kerosene oil at the rate of Rs. 18/- per tin from the petitioner. At the time of the purchase, another kerosene dealer, Kedar Jha was also alleged to have been present. A copy of the written report of Amol Jha has been contained in Annexure 1. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered the aforesaid case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and later submitted a charge-sheet on the 30th June, 1974.

3. The aforesaid Fulchand Kamat and the petitioner, who were made accused in the case, filed applications before this Court for quashing the prosecutions, which were registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1984 of 1974, and No.361 of 1975. These two cases were admitted on the 9th August, 1974, and the 12th February, 1975, respectively, and further proceedings in the court below were stayed.

4. On the 29th June, 1973, on his release on bail, Fulchand Kamat, filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur at Madhubani, alleging that on the 26th June, 1973, the aforesaid Kedar Jha had sold one tin of Kerosene oil to him at the rate of Rupees 18/-, which was kept by him at the place of Chandrakant Thakur, and it was Kedar Jha himself, who had kept the other tins of Kerosene oil at the place of Chandrakant Thakur, and Fulchand was coerced by Kedar Jha to state that he had purchased the aforesaid five tins of Kerosene oil from the petitioner, A copy of the aforesaid complaint has been filed as Annexure 2. The petitioner has averred that there is no allegation as to what had occasioned the sale of the aforesaid five tins of kerosene oil. Notwithstanding the fact that a prosecution h